Politics 101 from a Christian perspective part 1
Earlier I had posted a question on Facebook regarding the relationship of Scripture to the realm of politics. For purposes of recollection, or in the case of someone missing it, I had posed the question like this:
“Was Jesus a political figure? Did He, or the Bible, have anything to say about politics? If you have the guts to post them, what are your thoughts?” (September 20, 2012)
It was a rather provocative question, or so I had thought, but to my misfortune, it did not generate much in the way of discussion.
I had asked the question in hopes of talking about it. I enjoy talking to people about their political opinions, especially when they differ from my own. It does not bother me. Really, it is belligerence and incoherence that bothers me, when someone lacks respect for the individuals of “the opposing side.” When people’s heated passions extend out further than their brains—that’s when we have a problem. So I was hoping to collect more comments, but I will make do with what I have.
At any rate, I did receive a few interesting comments. I will share them here. Each of these statements consists of three different views from three different people. I will briefly comment on each of them for now and return to them later for further discussion:
Comment #1: “I think at times they ( the religous leaders) tried to draw him in to the politcal realm. I can [not] help believing that those who followed him had the mind set that he was setting up his kingdom there and that he would lead them over the roman empire.”
What I understand about this comment is that the author of it sees Jesus as existing outside the political realm, since he mentions that the religious leaders tried to draw Him into it. The commentator does not define, exactly, what is meant by his use of the “political realm,” but seems to refer to it as the misapprehensions of mankind in the manipulation of others. He refers only to the religious leaders of that time and religious zealots who mistakenly believed that the Messiah would overthrow the Roman Empire and establish Israel as the elites of the world. So, in this view, politics is not perceived as a good thing, but as a form of estrangement from God.
Moving on:
Comment #2: “I think he was as he is God, as he desperately encouraged the worship of The Father who is above all and should properly run governmental or state affairs. The old testament describes a conversatiin with a prophet during which the people didnt want God to run them, but they wanted a King [1 Samuel 8:1-22]. I believe Jesus wanted to see that reversed. Jesus frequently spoke of "social relations involving authority or power" which is what politics is in an attempt to make that a political reality.”
This comment is interesting and is directly backed up with Scripture. Here, politics is conceived of as a system that rejects God. The King, which the commentator uses as being analogous to government in general, is perceived as being a rejection of God—a turning away of true worship and praise to an idol, or a moving away from the heavenly and spiritual to that which is earthly and carnal. Politics itself is perceived as a form of control and coercion of the people to the idol of the state (government) away from the Creator. The writer indicates that he believe Jesus wanted to see the reversal of government—from the worship of the idol (the state or government) back to the centrality of God in the life of the citizen.
Unfortunately, the author does not specify precisely what that entails. To what extent should this be taken on this side of heaven? Does this involve a theocracy, like the one ancient Israel had, or something else? What form of government would it consist of?
It is an interesting and insightful comment, nonetheless, and the writer of it gives us plenty to discuss. I will definitely interact with it in more depth later on.
Comment #3: “Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars anf that which is God unto God.” [Mat 22:21; Mark 12:17; and Luke 20:25]
In this comment, only a verse is posted, so I am unclear as to what was intended by it. On the surface of it, the verse means to pay your taxes, assuming Caesar is analogous to our current form of government. However, this verse, standing by itself, tends to raise more questions than it answers. For example, does it mean that there are things which are Caesar’s that are separate from the things of God? Does the one who posted it mean to indicate that there are things which belong to the government, which are outside of the scope of Christian living? Does it agree with the first two comments that say that political bodies are the result of sinful man rebelling and turning away from the things of God, which, according to this verse, would see government as a necessary evil? I don’t know. Perhaps the writer meant to indicate that government was a good thing. Either way, I’ll be certain not to exclude the verse from my own presentation, as I answer my own question.
What was that question again?
“Was Jesus a political figure? Did He, or the Bible, have anything to say about politics?”
Getting directly to the point, my answer to both parts of the question is “yes” and “yes.” Jesus was definitely a political figure and both He as well as Scripture talks about politics, without ceasing, from the book of Genesis to the book of Revelation. Actually, if one thinks about it, they are both the same question; meaning, that if one answers one way to one of the questions, they must answer that way to both of them. One cannot be a political figure without having something to say about politics; and one cannot say something about politics without being a political entity.
I submit that from cover to cover the Bible is a political book by its very nature. Indeed, it scarcely, if ever, talks about anything else. It is often said that religion should stay out of politics and that politics should stay out of religion. Many people, it seems Christians included, are quite content with that. But come now, let us reason together (Isa 1:18). Let us take a thorough account of the question I have set before us. Let us begin by asking another very basic question:
What is politics?
Let’s start by defining the term. I know some might criticize me for doing such an elementary thing in a paper, but the reality is that defining one’s terms is essential to any rational discussion, academic snobbery aside. Indeed, whenever the subject of politics arises in conversation, people usually have in mind politics, as the art of deception, propaganda, and control. But this is not at all what the term means. Even when I asked my question, the responses indicated that such was the definition of the term upon which their minds were operating, likewise with those who say that religion and politics should not mix. Obviously, defining our terms is necessary.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, politics is, a : the art or science of government;b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy; c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government (see footnote 1).
So when I ask questions such as, “Does Jesus or Scripture have anything to say about politics?” and receive an answer that indicates that He tried to stay out of politics, then doesn’t that mean that He had nothing to say concerning how human beings are to be governed, execute justice and laws, or power relations? Do people who say that religion should stay out of politics actually mean to indicate that the church should remain silent on how the government shapes policy? What if it had always followed such a precedent? What if it had, for example, remained silent on American slavery or Hitler’s eugenics programs? Does such a prescription seem either right or moral now?
Another part of the definition of our term is, likewise, informative. Consider the fifth entry of the dictionary, 5a : the total complex of relations between people living in society.
Should the church also remain silent about the social relations of those living in society?
There is politics, which is not only necessary but unavoidable, and there is the distortion of politics. One idea should not be confused with the other, or we open up a whole other realm of distortions and confusions. And it is precisely within such a Pandora’s Box that we are living. We confuse what politics actually is with how it is distorted. Then, with our distorted definition of politics, insist that the Christian religion has nothing to say about the matter except to condemn the practice.
One problem with such a view is that it has no coherent solutions to the distortion. It is based upon wishful thinking, utopian dreams, and does not acknowledge the presence of sin and evil in this world. Of course it is true that if all mankind inclined himself to God, and to God alone, as his ultimate purpose, there would be no need for laws. However, we would still need a political system. We would still need people to work, to exchange goods and services, to communicate, to participate in a, yes, political system. On top of this, there is sin and evil in the world, and they aren’t going to go away on this side of eternity. So we also need laws, rules and legislations to curb the tide of evil and to administer justice in the land.
The very body of Christ is a political system. We are citizens of a kingdom; and that kingdom has a firmly established King. This is the entire reason we even call Him “Lord.” Our political system, which is to be embodied by the Church, has all the variety of any secular system. We have divisions of labor, and individuals gifted for certain tasks, we have customs and rituals, we have a Legislator, and those gifted at interpreting and executing that legislation, we have teachers and an educational system…we even have a fire department.
I hope and pray the many of you will read what I have said…and seriously consider it. I hope that it is thought-provoking and causes you to re-imagine and to redefine your perspective on politics. In this paper, I have only begun to lay the groundwork for future writings on the subject. All I have done, so far, is to define politics—using a secular source—and to demonstrate that it has everything to do with the Christian faith and with Scripture. I hope this causes some further discussion and interests you enough to read part 2, where I will get deeper into the subject of politics—what it is, what its elements are, and what they are for. I look forward to your comments.
Thank you for reading.
1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics
No comments :
Post a Comment